KOHINOOR FOODS LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s Appeal stand dismissed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accoutant Member Dcit, Circle-14(2), New Delhi Vs. M/S Kohinoor Foods Ltd. 10Th Floor, Pinnacle Room No. 323, C.R. Building, New Delhi – 2 Business Tower, Suraj Kund Road, Faridabad Haryana-121001 (Pan: Aaacs2470D) (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S Kohinoor Foods Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 14(2), 10Th Floor, Pinnacle New Delhi Business Tower, Suraj Kund Road, Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Pan: Aaacs2470D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Sh. Salil Kapoor, Utkarsha Kumar Gupta, Ms. Soumya Singh, Advocates Department By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.09.2025

bogus purchases during first assessment proceedings. The present assessment proceedings have been initiated after receipt of this fresh information. Therefore, this cannot be treated as change in opinion. Accordingly, the various judgments relied upon by the appellant is not applicable to the facts of this case and liable to be rejected. The appellant has also mentioned that the approval

BHARTIYA INTERNATIONAL LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

purchases. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. assessing officer/ Id. TPO/ Hon'ble DRP have erred in making adjustment of Rs.23,06,351/- on account of commission on standby letter of credit.” 3. Grounds No.1 of the concise ground (supra) is dismissed as not pressed in the wake of averments made

GSR INDUSTRIES,NOIDA vs. DDIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

section 144C (1). 3. Because the impugned assessment order dated 21.06.2023 is perverse as the Ld. AO as well as the 3 GSR Industries Ld. DRP, both didn't appreciate the evidence of the transaction of credit note issued by the assessee and corresponding adjustment made by the AE The allegation that the credit note was afterthought is baseless

PICO DEEPALI OVERLAYS CONSORTIUM (BY DEEPALI DESIGNS EXHIBITS (P.) LTD.),DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Pico Deepali Overlays Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-17, Consortium, C/O Mna & Co., Delhi Cas, Suite 444, Tower-B, Spazedge, Sector 47, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122 018 Pan :Aabap1880F (Appellant) (Respondent)

purchases made from Kirti Enterprises are bogus and thereby making an addition of INR 63,42,250/- in the returned income. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO / Hon'ble DRP has erred in arbitrarily disallowing the expenses amounting to INR 29,86,27,579/- debited to profit & loss account

PICO DEEPALI OVERLAYS CONSORTIUM,HARYANA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 17, DELHI

In the result, both the captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Pico Deepali Overlays Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-17, Consortium, C/O Mna & Co., Delhi Cas, Suite 444, Tower-B, Spazedge, Sector 47, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122 018 Pan :Aabap1880F (Appellant) (Respondent)

purchases made from Kirti Enterprises are bogus and thereby making an addition of INR 63,42,250/- in the returned income. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO / Hon'ble DRP has erred in arbitrarily disallowing the expenses amounting to INR 29,86,27,579/- debited to profit & loss account

SUPERB MIND HOLDING LTD. ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE INT TAX 3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1568/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19

144C(5) of the Act rejected the objections filed by the assessee observing as under: “2.8 The submissions have been examined along with materials available on record. There is no dispute that the assessee has a Tax Residence Certificate of Mauritius. To that extent, the contention that it is resident in Mauritius is in order. However, even in case where

DCIT, CC-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYALPAL LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1977/Del/2020 (A.Y 2014-15)

bogus purchases unearthed during the course of search and post searc proceedings. 8. That the order of CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. The appellant prays for leave to add, amend, modify or alter any ground of appeal at the time or before the hearing of the appeal. 3. Brief facts

DCIT, CC-29, NEW DELHI vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1976/Del/2020 (A.Y 2013-14)

bogus purchases unearthed during the course of search and post search proceedings. 9. That the order of CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law. The appellant prays for leave to add, amend, modify or alter any grounds of appeal at the time or before the hearing of the appeal. Brief facts of the case

MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

144C(S) of the Act without judiciously and independently considering e factual and legal objections to the draft assessment order, is illegal and bad in law. 1.2 That the DRP erred on facts and in law in not directing the assessing officer to delete certain additions/ disallowance which were squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the appellate orders

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

144C(S) of the Act without judiciously and independently considering e factual and legal objections to the draft assessment order, is illegal and bad in law. 1.2 That the DRP erred on facts and in law in not directing the assessing officer to delete certain additions/ disallowance which were squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the appellate orders

M/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

144C(S) of the Act without\njudiciously and independently considering e factual and legal objections to\nthe draft assessment order, is illegal and bad in law.\n1.2 That the DRP erred on facts and in law in not directing the assessing\nofficer to delete certain additions/ disallowance which were squarely covered\nin favour of the appellant by the appellate orders

NIKESH ARORA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGON

In the result, appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: We Proceed To Deal With The Substantive Issues Arising

144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), pertaining to assessment year 2017-18, AY: 2017-18 in pursuance to directions of learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). 2. Before we proceed to deal with the substantive issues arising in the appeal, it is necessary to observe, a complaint dated 07.04.2023 addressed to the President, Income

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI vs. GARG ACRYLICS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

144C r.w. Section 144B of the Act. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee reads as under: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground no. 1 because of (a) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in disposing ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee holding the same as general in nature whereby

GARG ACRYLICS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

144C r.w. Section 144B of the Act. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee reads as under: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground no. 1 because of (a) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in disposing ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee holding the same as general in nature whereby

RELIGARE ENTERPRISES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 19(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

144C 2 SA No. 77/Del/2021 Religare Enterprises Ltd. of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act5) by the assessing officer (‘impugned order") is illegal and bad in law. 1.1 That or the facts and in law, the impugned order passed by the assessing officer is barred by limitation in terms of section 153(1) of the Act and is therefore

AMAZON WEB SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in the aforesaid manner

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Kumara.Yr. : 2018-19 Amazon Web Services India Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Delhi-1, Block-3, 14Th Floor, Unit Delhi Nos. 1401 To 1421, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New International Trade Delhi Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019 (Pan: Aajca9880A) (Appellant) (Respondent)

144C(3) read with section 144B of the Act. 3. In exercise of power vested under him under section 263 of the Act the Ld. PCIT perused and examined the records. He referred to the notice u/s. 263 of the Act issued to assessee and assessee’s response thereto. He concluded as under:- “The reply is evasive and assessee continues

CRESTA FUND LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), INT. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganesh

5 | P a g e ITA Nos.751 & 752/Del/2023 AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17 issue. The operative portion of learned DRP’s direction is reproduced hereunder for better clarity: “4.2.6 The analysis of the trading pattern in the scrips of M/s. Odyssey Corporation Limited gives a clear impression that there has been an element of manipulation by certain entities/parties trading

CRESTA FUND LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), INT. TAXAION, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganesh

5 | P a g e ITA Nos.751 & 752/Del/2023 AYs: 2015-16 & 2016-17 issue. The operative portion of learned DRP’s direction is reproduced hereunder for better clarity: “4.2.6 The analysis of the trading pattern in the scrips of M/s. Odyssey Corporation Limited gives a clear impression that there has been an element of manipulation by certain entities/parties trading

SRF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

5% Interest subsidy calculated on the loan outstanding which amounted to Rs. 3,08,96,338/-. The assessee made such additional claim vide letter dated 16.02.2016 before the AO. The AO did not entertain the additional claim of the assessee. The DRP did not admit the additional claim of the assessee relying on the judgment in Goetzee (India) Limited